dottedmint:Weren't we basically working "up until the 11th hour" with the UN when it came to Iraq???

No. Iraq wasn't perceived as much of a threat by the rest of the Security Council to the degree that this administration did. There wasn't anywhere near the level of urgency as your OBL-getting-the-bomb hypothetical scenario.

Many of us felt (at the time) that there was some urgency when it came to Iraq.

Well, you were wrong.

Even with the most "persuasive minds" if certain members of the UN do not wish to take action there is nothing that we can do to change their minds.

And what I'm saying is that we don't have the luxury of that kind of negative thinking.

Who decides what contracts are made for the oil

While the US-controlled Iraqi government is ultimately going to be charged with stewarding production, there are concerns about the Oil Law:

The official version of the draft law has not been published, but there is no doubt that it will be designed to hand most of the oil resources to foreign corporations under long-term exploration- and production-sharing agreements.

The oil law is likely to open the door to these corporations at a time when Iraq's capacity to regulate and control their activities will be highly circumscribed

The problem is that there are terrorists who are blowing up the utilities. It isn't that we screwed up.

I guess I don't find that answer acceptable, considering the billions and the training and the level of expertise involved. That should have been the #1 priority.

In every war that we have ever been in there have been mistakes made in planning.

That's no excuse either, quite frankly.

We hope that when we do eventually leave that the Iraqi government is strong enough to prevent these from happening.

Again, that doesn't get Bush off the hook. There needs to be a plan to get us out of there a lot sooner than some 25-50 year time period.

And I seriously doubt Iran would be allowed to get away with taking over Iraq. THAT would be an urgent matter and I believe you'd see more consensus if that scenario really did have the possibility of happening.

The last thing that we would want is to leave Iraq and then a few years later only have to return and face even more danger.

I agree that we're going to need international cooperation to help settle things down. But, if the Iraqis really do want us to leave, we should. You know the old adage? Freedom isn't free?

dottedmint: Weren't we basically working "up until the 11th hour" with the UN when it came to Iraq???

Whidbey:"No. Iraq wasn't perceived as much of a threat by the rest of the Security Council to the degree that this administration did. There wasn't anywhere near the level of urgency as your OBL-getting-the-bomb hypothetical scenario."

Of course now we know about some of the corruption that was involved between those members of the UN and Saddam.

In any case are you saying that IF the UN doesn't agree that there is a big enough threat that the US can't do anything?

That kinda seems to go back to one of my origional comments.

....IF the UN refuses to take any action.....The US does nothing???? ......

YOU are President.

YOU (as President) see a threat and the UN refuses to take action. You send your BEST advisors and diplomats to the UN to try to get them to take action. They still refuse. You (as President) feel that this threat is urgent but the UN still refuses to take action.

You (as President) do what????

Nothing???

You see what you think is an urgent threat but the UN refuses to act.

You say what????

'The UN knows best.' ???

Should the UN have veto power over how we deal with what we view as threats?

Well, you were wrong. (urgency of the threat)

Fine....

We were wrong.

But at the time we saw what we thought was an urgent threat. As President YOU would have to decide if you would respond to what you felt was an urgent threat or not.

"And what I'm saying is that we don't have the luxury of that kind of negative thinking."

It is not 'negative thinking'.

It is fact.

You could have sent the best minds possible to the UN and it would not prevent the corruption that the other countries were involved in.

"While the US-controlled Iraqi government is ultimately going to be charged with stewarding production, there are concerns about the Oil Law:

The official version of the draft law has not been published, but there is no doubt that it will be designed to hand most of the oil resources to foreign corporations under long-term exploration- and production-sharing agreements.

The oil law is likely to open the door to these corporations at a time when Iraq's capacity to regulate and control their activities will be highly circumscribed"

I find this interesting when you say yourself that the official draft of the law has not been published yet.

IF we did indeed "control" the Iraqi government we could have them actually fix the problems that still exist in that government.

We hardly "control" that government.

"I guess I don't find that answer acceptable, considering the billions and the training and the level of expertise involved. That should have been the #1 priority."

Well.....

Sorry you don't find that acceptable.

Could we actually prevent terrorists from destroying our infrastructure here in the states?

I hate to say it but NO.

There are what????

Millions of miles of power lines crisscrossing the US???

A handful of terrorists could very easily bring our power grid to its knees.

As President how would you protect our power grid?

"That's no excuse either, quite frankly." (mistakes in planning)

It is fact.

In every war we have ever been in there have been mistakes.

In every war that we will fight in the future there will be mistakes.

"Again, that doesn't get Bush off the hook. There needs to be a plan to get us out of there a lot sooner than some 25-50 year time period."

Well with all due respect you have no clue how long we will or will not be there.

"And I seriously doubt Iran would be allowed to get away with taking over Iraq. THAT would be an urgent matter and I believe you'd see more consensus if that scenario really did have the possibility of happening."

But if it did happen (it actually is a real risk) and the UN refused to take action you (as President) would do nothing?

"I agree that we're going to need international cooperation to help settle things down. But, if the Iraqis really do want us to leave, we should. You know the old adage? Freedom isn't free?"

And when the GOVERNMENT OF IRAQ asks us to leave we should leave...

Why has the government of Iraq not asked us to leave yet?

Could it be because they don't think they are secure enough to deal with the chaos that would follow?

WHAT IF WE WEREN'T WRONG? Then Bush would have been slammed for not taking care of it when he should have. It is so easy for everyone to sit on the sidelines after the fact (with perfect hindsight) and shoot holes in everything. How many times do we have to say it, EVERYONE THOUGHT THEY WERE THERE......EVERYONE (democratic, republican, almost all world leaders). We know for a fact there were a lot of biological weapons in the 90s. They were found, photographed and cataloged by the UN inspectors and Saddam never offered up any proof they were destroyed.

Another analogy for you: It was absolutely confirmed that a gang member has a gun and used it to kill a man in a robbery (100% confirmed). He was seen going into a house but then later leaves and police arrest him. He doesn't have the weapon on him. He denies ever having it and definitely won't tell the police where it is. Is it within the rights of the police to get a search warrant and tear the house from end to end looking for the gun? If they do and they don't find it are you going to prosecute the police for a crime and put him in prison or are you going to say it was his job and the gang member probably through the gun into a lake when nobody was looking?

And don't say that's what the inspectors were for because Saddam ran them around in circles and then eventually kicked them out. In the Iraq case, the only way to truley execute the search warrant is to take control of the country. Now that it looks like he moved the weapons elsewhere while nobody was looking (probably Syria) then you're going to use that as an excuse until your dead and buried.

I'm so sick of people's simplistic analysis and use of 20/20 hindsight.

Not to mention the fact that this is years behind us now and we should be spending our energy discussing where to go from here.

YOU (as President) see a threat and the UN refuses to take action. You send your BEST advisors and diplomats to the UN to try to get them to take action. They still refuse. You (as President) feel that this threat is urgent but the UN still refuses to take action.

You (as President) do what????

Oh god, not this again.

Look, it's really not rocket science, dottedmint.

I'm betting on having the diplomacy skills to convince the necessary doubters to cave in and agree. That's my goal.

If there truly is the kind of urgency you're talking about, there will be consensus. Iraq proved that there are other dissenting valuable opinions besides what the United States says. Bottom line.

But no, we cannot make the same half-cocked mistakes this administration has done. Not again. If we don't have consensus, we need to GET that consensus. If we act without that consensus, the UN means nothing.

Soup4Bonnie:.....implies that WE have been part of a collective decision making process up until this point. That's certainly not the case..........

It's called a representative government. It's the best system ever invented. If you disagree, turn in your passport and move to a place that has a better one. Not to mention that the congress voted to authorize force. I know you now want to split hairs and say it was used inappropriately and was "illegal" but nobody was saying that on the day the bombs started dropping. They didn't say it until much later when things didn't go as planned (like all wars). You can't vote for it, not complain when its happening, say nothing when it when it looks good and then when it gets tough start bailing out and pointing fingers.

What am I talking about, of course you can, that's exactly what you're doing.

Four years and they have nothing to show for it. Now you want me to give you ten or fifty or a hundred? Yeah, but no. Seriuosly, no. Are you smoking something?

See my post to whidbey. Oh my gosh, you mean an entire 4 years has gone by and we don't have the country turned around yet. By all means that's way too long (how do I mark sarcasm in a post????) Maybe if whidbey doesn't have the rule book then you do. Please point it out to me. According to your rule book's formula, how much time and how many lives and limbs does it take to help free millions of people of an oppressive dictator, form some kind of democratic government, rebuild the infrastructure, train an entire police force and military, kick Al Qaeda's buts, deal with Iran's handywork all while a certain % of the American people don't believe in what they're doing?

Soup4Bonnie Its ok that you decided the fight wasn't for you but my fellow soldiers are re-enlisting at rates way ahead of the projections and the primary reason they're giving is that they "believe in what they're doing". Now that you've made the decision to part ways, don't pretend you represent them.

I beg that you read these articles and watch the videos (links below) to get a true sense of why it's very important they're there and the type of deeds their doing to ensure the nation comes together. Don't be afraid to watch because you think its some kind of right-wing propaganda. It definitely shows its not all pretty. It shows the truth and the truth is much more complex and much more worth fighting for than you care to make out.

Whidbey:"I'm betting on having the diplomacy skills to convince the necessary doubters to cave in and agree. That's my goal."

That was Bush's goal.

"If there truly is the kind of urgency you're talking about, there will be consensus. Iraq proved that there are other dissenting valuable opinions besides what the United States says. Bottom line."

And if certain members of the UN are being bribed by the source of the threat there will not be a consensus.

Saddam basically had members of the UN in his back pocket.

No matter how much evidence there was they are not going to go against the gravy train.

"But no, we cannot make the same half-cocked mistakes this administration has done. Not again. If we don't have consensus, we need to GET that consensus. If we act without that consensus, the UN means nothing."

So this means that IF you (as President) see an urgent threat and the UN refuses to take action you will do nothing.

You would ignore an urgent threat because the UN doesn't agree with you.

In your administration the UN would have veto power over any military action that you may or may not take.

I know....I know....

YOU would be smarter and get the UN to agree with you....

How?

Would you bribe those members more than the source of the threat are bribing them?

"Well we WERE wrong. Big time. That's all that matters."

No. That is not all that matters.

We had to made choices based on what we knew or thought we knew at the time.

The Clinton administration said Saddam had WMDs.

Countless Dems said Saddam had WMDs.

Other countries said Saddam had WMDs.

The UN even said Saddam had WMDs.

The Bush administration said Saddam had WMDs.

No....After we got into Iraq we did not find the stockpiles of WMDs that we expected.

We did find evidence that Saddam was working to get WMDs and end UN sanctions.

We also find that Saddam was basically bribing members of the very UN that you hold so dear.

Had we known that UN members were being bribed by Saddam things may have been very different.

"And I'm sick of the military being the be-all/end-all/do all for everything this government doesn't like."

I don't think (and I don't think many people think) that the military is the 'be-all/end-all/do-all for everything'.

As I have said over and over I think diplomacy/humanitarian acts are the best option.

In some cases military action would be the best option even without UN approval.

How childish! Ha ha you were wrong, now put your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and go blah, blah, blah, blah so you can't hear anything else.

And you did say "WE" so we are in the same boat after. Dos Puntos.

You say pull out and let the blood bath begin. I say honor our committment to the region and finish the job.

And I'm sick of the military being the be-all/end-all/do all for everything this government doesn't like.

I don't hear anybody on this post saying that. It's more simplistic analysis and more silly finger pointing.

The world is complex whidbey, the world is complex. There are bad people and there is imperfect implementation of foreign policy everywhere you look (show me where its now).

Don't worry thought, there are people that aren't afraid of complexities and can make tough decisions and not afraid of sideliners waiting for anything to go wrong so they can say 'I told you so, nana nana nana".

the deciderer: How many times do we have to say it, EVERYONE THOUGHT THEY WERE THERE......EVERYONE (democratic, republican, almost all world leaders).

Bush and co. said (*cough*LIED*cough*) they were there and many nitwits believed him. Many of those nitwits (Hillary) have admitted to not even bothering to read any of the thousands of pages of intelligence reports on WMD's in Iraq, and in fact I doubt many in congress did. Iraq was a political maneuver executed by this administration at the right time, when this country was paranoid and the politicians in Washington were terrified of appearing soft in the "war on terror." You and I already agreed politicians are generally full of it, why is this a surprise to you? They could have all been lying for all I care, that doesn't make the war alright, and it doesn't excuse the litany of mistakes that continue to be made by this administration that are compounding the situation.

Let's even argue for a minute that you're right. I cannot say there was not some amount of opportunism involved but not as frame it.

GW will be out in just over a year. He'll more than likely find a way to keep the troops in Iraq until his term expires.

I argue that you have to stay and finish what we started. There are a lot of posts about the US not have legitimacy. Pulling out will definately be the final nail in the coffin. Whoever's in power will have to make a VERY tough decision. I'm actually about 49.8% hoping its a democrat (just not Hillary) so they get a wack at it. I'm not as worried as most on my side about this prospect because, as I've said, many things are actually dictated more on the realities on the ground than people think and the president will not necessarily be able to make the types of drastic moves that some suggest.

Uh, no. Bush believed Iraq needed shaping and a dictator needed to be toppled to secure the region for its resources and strategic base to eventually attack other countries such as Iran.

I don't believe that there is a diplomatic bone in that man's body, personally. He was following marching orders drummed up by thinktanks where people in his cabinet were members. The idea was to shape the Middle East. Something we have no business doing as a country.

And if certain members of the UN are being bribed by the source of the threat there will not be a consensus.

And we've discussed this before: that corruption needs to be exposed and addressed. Tough business, huh?

No matter how much evidence there was they are not going to go against the gravy train.

And that's subject to debate, too. I contend that there wasn't enough evidence, and they had too much to lose by following what the United States wanted to do: invade anyway. Maybe they didn't want to get into the klstrfk of a post-Saddam aftermath, it was too risky for their business interests. At any rate, the US did not present a compelling case.

dottedmint:You would ignore an urgent threat because the UN doesn't agree with you.

No I would not. What I'm saying is that the UN would agree if it were indeed such an urgent threat. You're most likely talking about something that would occur within a closer distance to European and Asian countries on the Security Council than the thousands of miles that separate the US.

I'm telling you: The US wants division and chaos amongst those who vote for resolutions. That way, the warmonger in office can do a mock theatrical throwing up of the hands and state with tortured brow that the only solution is to invade ______ (pick from the drop-down list).

The world is complex whidbey, the world is complex. There are bad people and there is imperfect implementation of foreign policy everywhere you look (show me where its now).

I think it's funny, just because I don't embrace the way we do business, that somehow I fail to see the world's complexity. All along I've been attempting to point out to you the failure of this country to meet its goals--because those goals involved some very bad deeds to accomplish. It's really that simple.

We stop electing idiots like Bush, and start interjecting some of the ideas that I've been bringing up. I guarantee you that this country's morale and reputation will pick up dramatically.

Don't worry, we'll handle it for you.

If you plan on "handling it" with even the slightest manner this administration has, forget it. "We're" not going to let you...;)

whidbey: I think it's funny, just because I don't embrace the way we do business, that somehow I fail to see the world's complexity. All along I've been attempting to point out to you the failure of this country to meet its goals--because those goals involved some very bad deeds to accomplish. It's really that simple.

No, don't twist the conversation.

You said: And I'm sick of the military being the be-all/end-all/do all for everything this government doesn't like.

So I said: I don't hear anybody on this post saying that. It's more simplistic analysis and more silly finger pointing. The world is complex whidbey, the world is complex. There are bad people and there is imperfect implementation of foreign policy everywhere you look (show me where its now).

What this means is that you're taking a very simple analysis of 7 years of Bush foreign policy and the posts of the people on this forum. Nothing backs up your statement.

Look, Bush was in power during 9/11 and he made the decisions to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. A majority of congress and the American people supported it until it went longer than a min-series. Do you realize, at one point, he had the highest approval rating of any President in history (I believe around 90%)? Now the tide has turned and the war is not popular and everyone wants to get on the Bush Bashing Bandwagon.. You're hatred of GW (mostly due to the 2004 election) now consumes you so much that it clouds any subjective analysis.

We stop electing idiots like Bush, and start interjecting some of the ideas that I've been bringing up. I guarantee you that this country's morale and reputation will pick up dramatically.

As I said, I don't have a major problem if a democrat gets elected because they will be faced with the same realities. I also know this is what scares the fark out of you because it means your idealism will be shown for what it is.

If you plan on "handling it" with even the slightest manner this administration has, forget it. "We're" not going to let you...;)

Stop belittling my suggestions. If you don't agree with them, that's your perogative. I'm sorry it's just too hard for you to see that position. The first step is believing that peace can be possible. I'm not seeing that in the current political paradigm. I only see war, bloodshed and chaos on the horizon.

What this means is that you're taking a very simple analysis of 7 years of Bush foreign policy and the posts of the people on this forum.

It doesn't take much to realize that those policies are failures. That's my whole beef with this discourse. You are giving us the impression that it's fine and dandy to ignore the fact that the man in charge is a political failure, rather it's counterproductive to realize the magnitude of our mistakes.

Now the tide has turned and the war is not popular and everyone wants to get on the Bush Bashing Bandwagon..

No, the people realized that they were both being fooled and lied to. That tends to piss off reasonable minds. A lot of reasonable minds, judging by the polls. The people aren't fickle, they're waking up to the disgrace that's in charge of this country.

You're hatred of GW (mostly due to the 2004 election) now consumes you so much that it clouds any subjective analysis

Yeah, I've heard this tired talking point a little too many times, so forgive me if I ignore it as total BS. I didn't come to my conclusions overnight, and frankly I can't think of a damn thing worthy to praise the man. Fact, is, everything you've defended is easily answered. Bush sucks, and should be impeached as a lesson to any future asshole warmonger who abuses his Presidential powers to fulfill an imperialist agenda. Yes, it's a bitter pill to swallow, but it's our duty as citizens to not let this happen again.

As I said, I don't have a major problem if a democrat gets elected because they will be faced with the same realities. I also know this is what scares the fark out of you because it means your idealism will be shown for what it is.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

I realize that we're f*cked if we elect any of the Democrat candidates. Both parties suck, and hell yes they're beholden to the same stagnant, damaging ideologies.

Whoever gets elected would be smart to instill real change instead of hanging on to the same un-workaable philosophies that have gotten this country in the rut it's in.

We shall see whidbey, we shall see.

Yes, we will. And I'd like to point out that if things do turn out with the same degree of dishonesty, disingenuity and sabre-rattling, I'll still take comfort that though the ideals I discussed were not represented in the new government, I know deep down in my heart that they are right, and this country has taken an even more disturbing dysfunctional turning of the corner.

The way I see it you just won't accept reality, you say thing like why can't we please everybody by having a vote of what everyone in the US over the age of 18 (I assume) wants. Perhaps you have never heard that pure democracy is historically terrible for minorities. You will NEVER pass a law that 100% of the people are happy about, otherwise why would you need to pass a law? There is no issue that is universally acceptable so there can never be consensus.

And your thoughts on peace are more fluff. Ultimately the whole Israel/Palestinian conflict for example will not be settled until Israel moves somewhere else. Ok, that's open for debate. Take Rwanda/Darfur/Somalia/and so on. These are wars started over what? They will always happen as long as there are poor people. And there will always be poor people, regardless of what socialist paradise you have in mind.

I'm telling you: The US wants division and chaos amongst those who vote for resolutions. That way, the warmonger in office can do a mock theatrical throwing up of the hands and state with tortured brow that the only solution is to invade ______ (pick from the drop-down list).

This statement in itself is very telling. You actually believe that we want to invade countries for the sake of invading them. You can't see the enormous failures of the UN in Iraq and elsewhere. You think that invading North Korea or Iran is something we would inevitably do because for some reason it's our choice. It would have nothing to do with them making insane batshiat crazy threats every other week and always talking about acquiring nuclear weapons. Ultimately you feel the need to blame the US for everything that happens.

Explain to me exactly what you will do the day that Iran announces that it has nuclear capable missles in a speech which I guarantee will be peppered with anti-western in general and anti-US in specific rhetoric. Sit and wait? If they lauch against Europe or Israel, what then? What will it take for you to say "dayum, something needs to be done"? Or will you just sit back and say "we deserved it for mucking around in the ME for fifty years"? Will you have a little smile on your face? I think you would...

Reality is what we make of it. It doesn't have to be constant, it's subject to change. And change is needed. That's a fact.

you have never heard that pure democracy is historically terrible for minorities

I'm not about "pure democracy." I believe in our Constitution, which protects said minorities against majorities.

Not to mention you could probably guess my answer if I applied your maxim to the failure in Iraq, but I can't help but think that you don't really want democracy there either, if you believe that.

You will NEVER pass a law that 100% of the people are happy about, otherwise why would you need to pass a law? There is no issue that is universally acceptable so there can never be consensus.

I would like some more details explaining this statement. How does it apply to what I've brought up?

And your thoughts on peace are more fluff.

Disagree, obviously. Peace is what we ultimately want, we should be working towards it. And it will take some seriously hard work and committment, much more than making war.

And there will always be poor people, regardless of what socialist paradise you have in mind.

And I disagree with this, too. We've never been at a better time in our short blip on this planet to concentrate on abolishing hunger and making people's lives better. And I have no "socialist paradise" in mind, I realize that such a goal is a tough climb that may well take generations. I don't know why it's so hard for you to come to the conclusion that what we're doing isn't working, it's futhering the decline of this nation, and could destroy us if we don't change.

What the hell does that even mean? By disagreeing, I'm "belittling"? That's an emotional defense in what is supposed to be an intellectual discussion. If you want me to agree your ideas are a futuristic possibility, sure, why not but that doesn't help us right now. I've also said that it's always good (even necessary) to have such idealism in play because without it, we may not change nearly as quickly. So, in reality, I'm ok with your ideas and concepts. The problem we have is that you want to spend 100% of your energy arguing this can and will happen in the near future when, in fact, that's impossible. I, on the other hand, want to spend my energy working on pragmatic solutions in a real world.

That's my whole beef with this discourse. You are giving us the impression that it's fine and dandy to ignore the fact that the man in charge is a political failure, rather it's counterproductive to realize the magnitude of our mistakes.

Ok, I'll make you feel better; there have been lots of mistakes made. I'm sure you're happier now but also sure you'll come back and say the word "mistakes" is not strong enough and try to get me to go farther and farther. Hopefully, this is when people will see your true objective is to just Bash Bush, not to have a discourse that will find a real way of moving us forward.

........frankly I can't think of a damn thing worthy to praise the man. Fact, is, everything you've defended is easily answered. Bush sucks, and should be impeached as a lesson to any future asshole warmonger who abuses his Presidential powers to fulfill an imperialist agenda.....

On and on and on and on and on. I think I'll form a new organization and call it BBA (bush bashers anonymous) so those of you are powerless over your addiction can get helpl.

I realize that we're f*cked if we elect any of the Democrat candidates. Both parties suck, and hell yes they're beholden to the same stagnant, damaging ideologies.

You can't be less pragmatic than that. I just guess you'll be using Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V for the next 8 years saying the same thing over and over again.

Yes, we will. And I'd like to point out that if things do turn out with the same degree of dishonesty, disingenuity and sabre-rattling, I'll still take comfort that though the ideals I discussed were not represented in the new government, I know deep down in my heart that they are right, and this country has taken an even more disturbing dysfunctional turning of the corner.

I see. So you're just being patronizing when you admit that "mistakes were made." I gotta say I don't care for your "oh well, let's just move on" attitude. I believe that this administration needs to be punished as an example to anyone else who feels the need to try to pull the sh*t they've been doing. They are over-stepping their powers with their foreign policy, and the War on Terror q

the_deciderer:On and on and on and on and on. I think I'll form a new organization and call it BBA (bush bashers anonymous) so those of you are powerless over your addiction can get helpl.

I would think there should be support groups for the remaining few who still insanely back the man, quite frankly.

the_deciderer: The problem we have is that you want to spend 100% of your energy arguing this can and will happen in the near future when, in fact, that's impossible.

It's going to have to be somewhat near-future. I don't believe we can sustain our present way of dealing with things. Too many damn cans of worms being opened by our obsession with necessary evils. Maybe we would go into Pakistan and stir up the hornet's nest even more. How does this actually address root causes of why so many hate us? Talking with bombs instead of words.

the_deciderer:Hopefully, this is when people will see your true objective is to just Bash Bush, not to have a discourse that will find a real way of moving us forward.

Nope, and I admire your ability to admit that we've screwed up. But it's a foregone conclusion that we really shouldn't be electing farktards like that anymore. The next President who feels that he has "no choice" but to explore said pragmatic actions is going to have an earful if they pander to that kind of thinking, I can assure you.

smert:You actually believe that we want to invade countries for the sake of invading them

No, there are very real reasons for doing so, but they sure aren't humanitarian ones. Every country we've meddled with had something we wanted, whether it's the resources or strategic location. Anything but straight-up altruistic HELP. Everything we do has to have these far-reaching strings attached.

I just don't trust this country's intentions, not with the mindset indicative of the past 50 years.

Explain to me exactly what you will do the day that Iran announces that it has nuclear capable missles in a speech which I guarantee will be peppered with anti-western in general and anti-US in specific rhetoric

I don't think that day will come. I think it's fear brought on by this administration. But--if there is such a day, it had better goddamned be handled by an international coalition.

What will it take for you to say "dayum, something needs to be done"? Or will you just sit back and say "we deserved it for mucking around in the ME for fifty years"? Will you have a little smile on your face? I think you would...

Where did I say I would "do nothing?" Wake me up when a real emergency presents itself, not the lies, BS and fearmongering that suckered us into invading Iraq, which sure as sh*t wasn't the kind of urgency you're alluding to.

whidbey:I see. So you're just being patronizing when you admit that "mistakes were made." I gotta say I don't care for your "oh well, let's just move on" attitude. I believe that this administration needs to be punished as an example.......

No, I'm not being patronizing. I believe it but I don't believe the obsession you have to hang GW is going to get you anywhere. Its just a form of political revenge meant to make you feel better.

would think there should be support groups for the remaining few who still insanely back the man, quite frankly.

You're the one turning into a bush tug-of-war. My posts are targeted for the future when he's out of office. The new leader faces real tough decisions and I would rather put the forum's energy analyzing them.

How does this actually address root causes of why so many hate us?

I'm trying to discuss the root cause of Muslim Extremism, this is much different than "why so many hate us". Obviously, there's a difference because most of Europe hates us but they're not strapping bombs to their children. Of course, I know, you'll say they're the same and actually the US is the root cause of Muslim Extremist. Here we go again.

Nope, and I admire your ability to admit that we've screwed up. But it's a foregone conclusion that we really shouldn't be electing farktards like that anymore. The next President who feels that he has "no choice" but to explore said pragmatic actions is going to have an earful if they pander to that kind of thinking, I can assure you.

Oh no, not the dreaded "EARFUL". Why don't you, instead, get behind your best option for President, donate to the campaign and start explaining the doable actions you would require he/she do and maybe you'll actually be accomplishing something.

No, there are very real reasons for doing so, but they sure aren't humanitarian ones. Every country we've meddled with had something we wanted, whether it's the resources or strategic location. Anything but straight-up altruistic HELP. Everything we do has to have these far-reaching strings attached.

What "resources or strategic location" did we want from Somalia? What did we want from Afghanistan other than to kick the Taliban out? I love how you try and wrap everything up into simple (and incorrect) statements.

I don't think that day will come. I think it's fear brought on by this administration. But--if there is such a day, it had better goddamned be handled by an international coalition.

And if they won't act even though they're pointed directly at us or our allies? I bet you'll give them another of your "EARFUL".

I ask you what you would do if YOU saw an urgent threat that the UN refused to act on and your response was that...'they would deal with an urgent threat'.

You may think that the UN would always do the right thing.

I don't.

And I want to know what you would do if they don't do the right thing.

I honestly don't think you want to actually answer that question.

IF you say you would do nothing without the UNs blessing you are saying you would let the UN determine US security.

IF you say you would take action without the UNs blessing you are saying that the UN isn't as important as you say.

So again.....

You President Whidbey see an urgent threat that endangers the security of the US.

You ask the UN to take actions against that threat.

ONE lone member of the UN votes NO and vetos the proposed action to deal with the urgent threat that faces the US.

What do you do???

Nothing????

Do you say the UN knows best???

Or do you take action and point out that YOU (and you alone as President) are responsible for dealing with threats that endanger this country?

Do me a favor and simply answer the question....

BTW....This caught my eye.....

"I don't think that day will come. [Iran with Nukes] I think it's fear brought on by this administration. But--if there is such a day, it had better goddamned be handled by an international coalition."

UM.....

We had an international coalition when we went into Iraq.

Actually....while it may be getting smaller we still have an international coalition in Iraq.

dottedmint:You may think that the UN would always do the right thing.I don't.And I want to know what you would do if they don't do the right thing.I honestly don't think you want to actually answer that question.

I have no problem answering it. Using the manpower and weaponry of this country and others isn't off the table, if that's the last straw. But I don't want to have to consider that option, and frankly I don't think that option will arise in the event of a real world emergency. Especially if this country makes an effort to participate more effectively in the UN instead of just using it to its advantage.

the_deciderer:I would like to hear everyone's opinion on the best possible democratic candidate

That's looking pretty sad right now. Hillary's scary, obviously, Edwards is like a replicant, and Obama pissed me off by caving into Hillary's comment about how naive he was regarding foreign policy. Perhaps it was as tense a moment as some of the discussion in here, but up until this incident where Obama stated he would send troops into Pakistan, I can't help but feel disappointed, that yeah, you're right, America isn't ready for this kind of peppy progressive thinking right now, but I do believe the awareness is growing that change is needed. I just hope we don't run into some seriously farked up times in the next five to ten years, that even though things aren't perfect, people have the room to grow and personally find some answers to some of the more rudimentary problems we have, like energy.

Whidbey:"I have no problem answering it. Using the manpower and weaponry of this country and others isn't off the table, if that's the last straw."

Hmmmmm......

Now we're getting somewhere.

So.... IF as President you saw (what you considered) an urgent threat that the UN was unwilling to deal with you would be willing to take unilateral military action against that threat.

You do realize that as President Whidbey was sending our troops off to die in your war there would be others who would say you should '...give peace a chance...' that you should go back to the UN with '....smarter diplomats....' that they would rather have years of '....so-so diplomacy....' instead of seeing our brave boys and girls give their lives for '....your war....'.

Then of course as the number of dead and wounded rose there would be others who would attack your '....poorly planned war....' and would call for your '....impeachment....' for '....violating intarnational law....' by launching a '....pre-emptive war....'.

As the war dragged on there would be some who origionally supported the war that would suddenly call their support for the war '....a mistake....'.

Hmmmmmmm.....

I swear I've heard all that before.....

At least you would have a different type of Presidency...

Right???

"But I don't want to have to consider that option, and frankly I don't think that option will arise in the event of a real world emergency. Especially if this country makes an effort to participate more effectively in the UN instead of just using it to its advantage."

You may not want to consider that option but as President you would need to consider all options.

And again while you may trust the UN for always doing the right thing...

smert: You actually believe that we want to invade countries for the sake of invading them

No, there are very real reasons for doing so, but they sure aren't humanitarian ones. Every country we've meddled with had something we wanted, whether it's the resources or strategic location. Anything but straight-up altruistic HELP. Everything we do has to have these far-reaching strings attached.

I just don't trust this country's intentions, not with the mindset indicative of the past 50 years.

You seem to have this idea that we shouldn't do what is in our best interest. You call Iraq a collossal failure and assume that Darfur or Rwanda wouldn't be the same? We have gone into many countries to stop genocide, Somalia for example. We had nothing to gain there, not worthy of the effort for sure. And I would argue that going into Somalia and running when it got ugly is a real reason that terrorists were emboldened to attack us on many more fronts.

And you say 50 years, seems like you forget one of the MOST succesful nation building exercises in history. Japan which is the second largest economic power was rebuilt by the US. Difference between Japan and everything else is that we didn't hold back, beat the hell out of them and required unconditional surrender. In Iraq we have been fighting a "clean" war, there have been casualties but not the kind where you carpet bomb any target which pops up. So we have left enough intact that people who don't support a representative democratic goverment still attack their own people.

You have to at least admit that a western style democracy in the ME scares countries like Iran who regularly crack down any and all freedoms in their country.

smert:Difference between Japan and everything else is that we didn't hold back, beat the hell out of them and required unconditional surrender. In

I don't see the comparison. Japan was trying to destroy us and rule the world. Iraq is a political football dreamed up by the PNAC and other think-tank type players. My problem with your thinking is that it seems that you feel there is no degree of difference between a real crisis like WWII and the more vague, grey area of the "War" on "Terror." Yes, quotes, because I don't believe it's a war (against whom?) and a "terrorist" is anyone this government says is. It's a bunch of paranoid bullsh*t.

You have to at least admit that a western style democracy in the ME scares countries like Iran who regularly crack down any and all freedoms in their country.

Maybe the old-skool mullahs. There's actually quite a bit to suggest that the majority younger population is very interested in it. We should let them fight their own battles.

dottedmint:Now we're getting somewhere.

Not really. I don't see the point of getting me to admit that in a seriously urgent situation that going outside the UN might might be an option.

And I find the rest of your commentary disingenuous. In order to relent to something as extreme as you've offered up, it would have to be something the equivalent of a World War II. Very few people would be clamoring for "give peace a chance" or "send more diplomats." You are basically talking about a situation where this country would be in grave danger. Then, and only then would that option be acceptable.

Traipsing into countries like Iraq that are no threat to us?

Uh, no. Big BIG difference.

And again while you may trust the UN for always doing the right thing...

I don't....

Again, I don't blame you. But wouldn't you have more faith in the organization if we became a bigger part of it, offering our leadership instead of taking advantage of squabbling ambassadors, getting more done instead of less? I understand it would take some very big successes to get people to believe in the concept of world representation again. Well, it's very possible, and right now, we're just wasting a very valuable resource.

whidbey:smert: Difference between Japan and everything else is that we didn't hold back, beat the hell out of them and required unconditional surrender. In

I don't see the comparison. Japan was trying to destroy us and rule the world. Iraq is a political football dreamed up by the PNAC and other think-tank type players. My problem with your thinking is that it seems that you feel there is no degree of difference between a real crisis like WWII and the more vague, grey area of the "War" on "Terror." Yes, quotes, because I don't believe it's a war (against whom?) and a "terrorist" is anyone this government says is. It's a bunch of paranoid bullsh*t.

Iraq was something that needed to have an end. It was becoming the next Cuba, tens of thousands of children were dying because of the UN sanctions and it's been shown that UN players were corrupt in the oil for food programs. We and the international community as a whole could have maintained that status forever, just like Cuba. Was Iraq nearly the same level of crisis as Japan presented, obviously not. Which is why we have gone in and not bombed the hell out of the place, the idea was to remove the corrupt goverment and then let the people form a new representative goverment. As we all know it's hasn't been simple but unlike you I don't see nefarious plots everywhere I turn.

That's essentially the difference between us. You seem to believe that if we aren't practically hurting ourselves helping someone else then it's bad. I would argue that there is no altruistic act because no matter what you are getting positive attention which works to your advantage later.

You have to at least admit that a western style democracy in the ME scares countries like Iran who regularly crack down any and all freedoms in their country.

Maybe the old-skool mullahs. There's actually quite a bit to suggest that the majority younger population is very interested in it. We should let them fight their own battles.

The ld school mullahs are the ones oppressing the population. I am aware that the younger people and the students are against them and are trying to effect reform, but this isn't the 60's in the US, they live in a society where dissent isn't something that goes over well at all. So having the youth movement stopping Iran from getting the nuclear bomb in Iran is about as pie in the sky wishing as you get.

I would argue that there is no altruistic act because no matter what you are getting positive attention which works to your advantage later.

And of course, I disagree. Sometimes altruism and compassion are important just for the sake of goodwill and trust.

I really don't understand why helping a country entails letting corporatism run amuck in that country, exploiting its citizens and breeding more resentment. And that's just one example off the top of my head, an example that is very consistent with our "helping." This will be the case with the Iraqi oil, for example. Rather than helping the people set up their own production lines, our solution is to allow bids to big corporations under the aegis of "economy." If anything, the people of Iraq are entitled to every dollar that oil makes.

Just an example. I'd really love to see this country do some real good without looking through glasses with dollar signs painted on them. Just once.

Whidbey:"And I find the rest of your commentary disingenuous. In order to relent to something as extreme as you've offered up, it would have to be something the equivalent of a World War II. Very few people would be clamoring for "give peace a chance" or "send more diplomats." You are basically talking about a situation where this country would be in grave danger. Then, and only then would that option be acceptable."

Actually as Hitler was building up his army there were plenty of people who were saying "give peace a chance" and "send more diplomats".

There were plenty of people who were saying that we shouldn't go to war.

There were plenty of people who didn't see Hitler as a grave danger.

Also.....

As President it is YOUR responsibility to determine if a danger was actually grave or not.

What one President would see as a grave danger might not be what another President sees as a grave danger.

Also.....why do you limit your action only on a WWII type situation?

I would see an attack like 9/11 to be a grave threat.

IF Al Quada finds a way to get ahold of WMDs????

So if there was a threat that could result in a WWIII type situation (the death of many people from many countries) you would act without UN blessing but if the threat was only something that would result in the death of Americans you wouldn't act without UN blessing?

Or is there a certain number of American deaths where after that point you would act?

dottedmint:Actually as Hitler was building up his army there were plenty of people who were saying "give peace a chance" and "send more diplomats".

Well, your Godwin aside, that isn't the same situation as implying people would oppose an actual emergency, as the US after December 7, 1941. There were war protestors, but extremely miniscule compared to the vast majority of citizens that were on board with the need to defeat the Axis.

And it's totally disingenuous of you to compare Iran to Nazi Germany. It's absurd, dottedmint. Not even the same thing, not even close.

I would see an attack like 9/11 to be a grave threat.

Fine. But we haven't had an attack. In six years. You're not going to compare Iran to 9/11 now, are you? Although I'm not too surprised by your leaps in logic, you are showing me how this administration thinks.

IF Al Quada finds a way to get ahold of WMDs????

I wouldn't play dice with this country. If the threat is cut and dried and all parties agree that it is grave (except your token UN ambassador, which I still think would agree), then in such an emergency I would agree to work with other countries outside the UN. Unilaterally? No. If everyone on earth disagreed with the United States's position, then it would behoove us to reconsider that position.

So if there was a threat that could result in a WWIII type situation (the death of many people from many countries) you would act without UN blessing but if the threat was only something that would result in the death of Americans you wouldn't act without UN blessing?

Or is there a certain number of American deaths where after that point you would act?

I didn't say that! I'm just saying that GENERALLY the goal is to help make the UN an effective force.

Right now, there isn't any such urgency as you're trying to paint. It just isn't happening. Sorry, but I just don't buy into the "what-if" paranoia that you do.

whidbey:smert: You seem to believe that if we aren't practically hurting ourselves helping someone else then it's bad.

What have I said specifically that gives you that impression?

I would argue that there is no altruistic act because no matter what you are getting positive attention which works to your advantage later.

And of course, I disagree. Sometimes altruism and compassion are important just for the sake of goodwill and trust.

I really don't understand why helping a country entails letting corporatism run amuck in that country, exploiting its citizens and breeding more resentment. And that's just one example off the top of my head, an example that is very consistent with our "helping." This will be the case with the Iraqi oil, for example. Rather than helping the people set up their own production lines, our solution is to allow bids to big corporations under the aegis of "economy." If anything, the people of Iraq are entitled to every dollar that oil makes.

Just an example. I'd really love to see this country do some real good without looking through glasses with dollar signs painted on them. Just once.

The answer to you first statement is your second statement. A certain portion of the oil production should pay the American people back for their expenditure in Iraq. Why not? Every dollar that oil makes? We are putting hundreds of billions into rebuilding their country, building infrastructure that hasn't been there way before the war, the country was in bad shape because of the wars with Iran and Saddam's attack on Kuwait. While we try to build infrastructure the damned insurgents blow it up along with a bunch of Iraqi people.

Then you get upset when we use *gasp* corporations to set up the oil infrastructure! Who else other than an oil company is even capable of doing this? And of course they should do it for free!

Whidbey:"Well, your Godwin aside, that isn't the same situation as implying people would oppose an actual emergency, as the US after December 7, 1941. There were war protestors, but extremely miniscule compared to the vast majority of citizens that were on board with the need to defeat the Axis."

Actually before we were attacked by Japan the number of people who were saying "give peace a chance" and "send more diplomats" was not as "miniscule" as you suggest.

Also the threat was there long before we were attacked at Pearl.

"And it's totally disingenuous of you to compare Iran to Nazi Germany. It's absurd, dottedmint. Not even the same thing, not even close."

Not even close????

Hmmmm.....

Hitler wanted to take over the world.

Are you saying the extremist leaders in Iran don't want to also take over the world?

Remember....Hitler didn't start out by threatening the rest of the world.

He started out small by being a threat to the region.

"Fine. But we haven't had an attack. In six years. You're not going to compare Iran to 9/11 now, are you? Although I'm not too surprised by your leaps in logic, you are showing me how this administration thinks."

The point is to take steps to prevent another 9/11.

IF we see the threat of another 9/11 (or worse) it would be better to take action before it happened.

Not after.

"I wouldn't play dice with this country. If the threat is cut and dried and all parties agree that it is grave (except your token UN ambassador, which I still think would agree), then in such an emergency I would agree to work with other countries outside the UN. Unilaterally? No. If everyone on earth disagreed with the United States's position, then it would behoove us to reconsider that position."

"all parties" ????

How many countries need to agree with you President Whidbey that the threat was grave?

I could agree that if no other country agreed that the threat was grave that perhaps we should rethink our actions.

But how many countries need to agree with you before you would take action?

"I didn't say that! I'm just saying that GENERALLY the goal is to help make the UN an effective force."

I'm just trying to get an idea at what point you would agree to use military actions without UN support.

I'm surprised how hard it is to get a straight answer from you.

Each time you seem to 'shift' your standards....

OK.....Let's see.....

IF President Whidbey saw (what you felt to be) a grave threat you would(????) take military action if the threat was of WWIII degree (threatening many people from many countries) without UN approval. But if only ...what... "all parties" agreed???

How many is that again?

And if the grave threat only threatened the lives of countless Americans you would(????) be willing to take military action without UN approval as long as some other countries agreed with you??

How many is that again?

BTW....who exactly decides if the threat is grave or dire or whatever.

Would you have a scale from 1 to 10 to 'measure' the degree of the threat?

After the threat reaches ...what... "8" you would be willing to take action?

And if YOU say it is an "8" while others say the threat is only a "6" who is right?

dottedmint:Actually before we were attacked by Japan the number of people who weresaying "give peace a chance" and "send more diplomats" was not as "miniscule" as you suggest.

I was shocked to learn that there were any protesters in America against WWII at all. I thought everybody was for it. I doubt we would have entered the war if we hadn't been attacked, but it's all speculation. The point is we agree that WWII was a genuine emergency.

Are you saying the extremist leaders in Iran don't want to also take over the world?

I really don't, sorry. If anything, they're all stirred up over Israel. I don't see anything close to the threat of a Hitler-style dictator revving up his country to attack and conquer countries, no. I see a country that has genuine grievances against the US, Britain and whoever else has shown the willingness to collaborate with us. Yes, they're a scary theocracy. No, unless they are showing real signs of aggression to the region (or beyond) I say leave them alone and let their own people change their lives.

IF we see the threat of another 9/11 (or worse) it would be better to take action before it happened.

Pretty big "if." I don't know that we see that threat, I think the possibility is being politicized by some very paranoid men in our government.

But, "if" some reliable intelligence came down the pike that there was the possibility of a nuclear weapon being detonated, I really don't see how that would go over as a flop at the UN. There was quite a bit of sympathy for the US after the 9/11 attack, no question.

But I believe that most of the "emergencies" are political fire drills where we benefit from the disagreement and chaos.

But if only ...what... "all parties" agreed???

I said I would agree to work with the other nations you specified had similar concerns about the threat. Just keep in mind that I would not foresee any dissenting opinion from anyone if say, Osama were broadcasting one of his famous videotapes standing in front of (or on top of) the bomb.

dottedmint:Actually before we were attacked by Japan the number of people who weresaying "give peace a chance" and "send more diplomats" was not as "miniscule" as you suggest.

I was shocked to learn that there were any protesters in America against WWII at all. I thought everybody was for it. I doubt we would have entered the war if we hadn't been attacked, but it's all speculation. The point is we agree that WWII was a genuine emergency.

Are you saying the extremist leaders in Iran don't want to also take over the world?

I really don't, sorry. If anything, they're all stirred up over Israel. I don't see anything close to the threat of a Hitler-style dictator revving up his country to attack and conquer countries, no. I see a country that has genuine grievances against the US, Britain and whoever else has shown the willingness to collaborate with us. Yes, they're a scary theocracy. No, unless they are showing real signs of aggression to the region (or beyond) I say leave them alone and let their own people change their lives.

IF we see the threat of another 9/11 (or worse) it would be better to take action before it happened.

Pretty big "if." I don't know that we see that threat, I think the possibility is being politicized by some very paranoid men in our government.

But, "if" some reliable intelligence came down the pike that there was the possibility of a nuclear weapon being detonated, I really don't see how that would go over as a flop at the UN. There was quite a bit of sympathy for the US after the 9/11 attack, no question.

But I believe that most of the "emergencies" are political fire drills where we benefit from the disagreement and chaos.But if only ...what... "all parties" agreed???

I said I would agree to work with the other nations you specified had similar concerns about the threat. Just keep in mind that I would not foresee any dissenting opinion from anyone if say, Osama were broadcasting one of his famous videotapes standing in front of (or on top of) the bomb.

We have been going back and forth with this for however many days now and I still don't honestly know what your standard would be for taking military action without UN support.

Obviously you would want UN support (and even I would prefer UN support) but in that case (however unlikely you may think) that the UN disagrees with your great diplomats and does not support military action you would be willing to use military force if:

1. You (President Whidbey) had intel (that you felt was accurate) of a grave threat that would either create a WWIII situation or endanger a certain number of Americans (do you have a specific number?) or (it seems from your last post) threatens "aggression to the region"...

and....

2. You (President Whidbey) had a coalition of other nations that support the plan to use military action.

You're trying, in so many words, to equate a decision as we've been talking about where it's obvious to the world there's a threat, to the decisions Bush made to invade Iraq, which was not a threat, was politically motivated, and as I've said, benefited from the disagreement of the Security Council to make for an excuse to go outside the organization.

You do realize there's a difference between those two scenarios? When the facts are analyzed and the reasons examined?

The only way I would do what Bush did is if I were incompetent and truly was clueless with the intel, which I highly doubt, or I would use what flimsy evidence in whatever capacity to deliberately launch the operation. And note how easy it was to do, especially in the wake of 9/11 and Afghanistan.

You don't make these decisions we're talking about any other way than sparingly. This is why we have the concept of a UN, to supposedly keep countries in check when it comes to some hot-headed decision.

I really don't appreciate that comparison. War would be the last thing on my mind, and it's plain to see that war was the first thing on this administration's mind from the beginning.

The problem with your 'I'd be so much smarter' attitude is that our intel did actually say Saddam was a threat, other countries said Saddam was a threat and even the UN said Saddam was a threat.

IF you want to argue that our intel was wrong...

Fine.

As President you would need to make choices based on the intel that you have.

You don't have the advantage of knowing beforehand if your intel is 100% accurate.

And for the record you really haven't elaborated on your standard for using military force.

Here....I'll ask again....

Obviously you would want UN support (and even I would prefer UN support) but in that case (however unlikely you may think) that the UN disagrees with your great diplomats and does not support military action you would be willing to use military force if:

1. You (President Whidbey) had intel (that you felt was accurate) of a grave threat that would either create a WWIII situation or endanger a certain number of Americans (do you have a specific number?) or (it seems from your last post) threatens "aggression to the region"...

and....

2. You (President Whidbey) had a coalition of other nations that support the plan to use military action.

Is THAT an accurate understanding of your standard???

Is it that you would only support taking military action if there was a WWIII type threat???

How many Americans would need to be threatened before you would take action?

3,000?5,000?10,000?100,000?

Or is it that you would only take action AFTER we were attacked and American lives were lost?

And if there was something that only threatens "aggression to [a] region"...you would or would not support military action???

Look, it's obvious the point of your exercise is to justify Bush's decision to invade Iraq, dottedmint. I think you know what my stance is, and it would have to be a genuine emergency situation, and if you look back amongst what I've posted earlier, I merely said that the military resources of this country would not be off the table depending on the circumstance.

I'm not going to go to absolutes with you. My problem is going outside the organization to fight a useless war without international support, and then proceeding to fail miserably, ignoring any possible warnings beforehand.

What I don't understand is why you insist on these hypotheticals where every decision is some grave moment against the United States. You obviously fear for WWIII, I say it's possible to get our act together and pull some of these countries together. I'd bet it takes an equal amount of energy to one or the other.

Whidbey:"Look, it's obvious the point of your exercise is to justify Bush's decision to invade Iraq, dottedmint."

Not really.....

Some time ago you ('least I recall it was you) talked about electing better people to DC...that we needed to change how we run this country...that we need some sort of political change...that you would do such a better job because you would be smarter...

Or at least something to that effect.

I am simply trying to understand your standard for using military force without UN blessing.

"I think you know what my stance is,"

Not really....

"...and it would have to be a genuine emergency situation, and if you look back amongst what I've posted earlier, I merely said that the military resources of this country would not be off the table depending on the circumstance."

And I'm trying to get a handle on under what "circumstance" you would be willing to pull out the big guns.

Instead of simply responding to my questions you seem to only want to say that you wouldn't do what Bush did.

"I'm not going to go to absolutes with you."

I don't know why not.

Either you would or would not use the military in different situations.

"My problem is going outside the organization to fight a useless war..."

You and I can disagree if it is useless or not.

My guess is that in possible situations where you might be willing to goto war that there would be some who would call your war useless.

I would hardly say we have failed "miserably". If you want to say that we have had setbacks and made mistakes. Fine. Since (as pointed out before) we have had setbacks and mistakes in every war that we have ever had there is no reason to think you or any other President wouldn't have setbacks and mistakes.

"What I don't understand is why you insist on these hypotheticals where every decision is some grave moment against the United States."

As I've said before I'm trying to get an understanding under what circumstances you would be willing to act without UN blessing.

"You obviously fear for WWIII,"

And you don't ?

Also I have more hope that the UN would act in that sort of situation.

Where I have some doubt is when some sort of threat endangers a region of the globe or a threat that endangers large numbers of American lives.

And again I think it is more important to take actions before these threats take their final shape....

IF we were attacked and 10,000 Americans were killed I actually doubt that the UN would not support our hunting down those who attacked us.

Of course that does NOTHING to bring back the 10,000 Americans who were killed.

"I say it's possible to get our act together and pull some of these countries together."

No, you do know my stance on this. I've onlyrepeated it way too many times. The truth is: you don't want to hear it.

When the solution involves the goal of diplomacy and peaceful settlement, you don't want any part of it. You're obviously too cynical to even consider that option: you just don't think it works. Judging by your comments, you believe military might is better than striving for peace, at least it...works?

And I believe that both take an equal amount of energy. And no, the war approach isn't working.Either you would or would not use the military in different situations.

OK, so what's your point? Why all the silly exercises? I said my goal is to avoid it. What is it about the word "emergency" you refuse to understand?

I'm not going to go to absolutes with you.

dottedmint:I don't know why not.

Because this isn't a world of absolutes, that's why. All I'm really interested in talking about is the here and now, especially if your little exercises are going to point us back in the direction of praising this administration's actions. And if there are concerns about countries like Iran, they need to be addressed internationally within the UN. I do not see a justifiable reason to skirt the US Constitution nor the treaty we signed with the UN to follow a political agenda.

You and I can disagree if [the Iraq War] is useless or not

Well, then I'm pretty speechless on that one. This war has proven itself to be the standard to avoid: undeclared conflicts borne out of lies and "faulty intelligence." Then complete policy failure shortly after the invasion.

I guarantee you I would not support a leader that tried the Iraq go-around again.

And yes, that means Iran, and yes, that means Pakistan. Or whoever else is on the list.

Oh, and your so-called "Coalition of the Willing" is still acting outside the UN, and they disgrace that organization more than your accusations of corruption. The invasion and occupation of Iraq is primarily a US operation based on US interests, and it is an abuse of our governmental/military system.

We citizens need to elect leaders who have enough of a backbone to stop these kinds of conflicts from continuing. You can dictate, you can philosophize the where's and why's, but I sincerely hope there are enough Americans with the sense to vote in a candidate that understands that America's foreign policy is a failure, and needs an overhaul.

No, I really don't. I do believe that this country has an obligation to make up for some of its misdeeds before it goes around questioning others.

Also I have more hope that the UN would act in that sort of situation.

That's good to hear.

Where I have some doubt is when some sort of threat endangers a region of the globe or a threat that endangers large numbers of American lives.

And again I think it is more important to take actions before these threats take their final shape....

IF we were attacked and 10,000 Americans were killed I actually doubt that the UN would not support our hunting down those who attacked us.

There was consensus with Afghanistan following 9/11..

I say it's possible to get our act together and pull some of these countries together."

dottedmint: And if they are being bribed by some terrorist nation????

And I've also said this many times: the corruption needs to be exposed and purged from the ranks. What that would take would be a bigger commitment on our part to become more involved in the organization rather than using it to our advantage as we have been doing.

IF there was a threat that endangered 10,000 Americans I would hope that either the UN or YOU (if the UN refused) would act before all those lives were lost.

Would you be willing to act before lives were lost or would you wait until after we were attacked to take action?

"And I've also said this many times: the corruption needs to be exposed and purged from the ranks. What that would take would be a bigger commitment on our part to become more involved in the organization rather than using it to our advantage as we have been doing."

You make it sound so simple.....

......'IF only we would become more involved we would find out about all the corruption that the other diplomats were involved in.......'

"No, you do know my stance on this. I've onlyrepeated it way too many times. The truth is: you don't want to hear it."

I'm trying to get you to clarify your stance.

You've said that you would work for peace....

OK....

...that you would want the UN to be involved in any military actions.....

OK....

But you've also said that IF the UN refused to take steps to deal with a threat that you would be willing (in some circumstances) to take military action without UN blessing.

I'm trying to get you to clarify under what circumstances you would be willing to take military action without UN blessing...

This is where you have not been clear...

How many American lives would need to be at risk before you would be willing to take military action?

Or would you only take action after those lives were lost?

Would you only respond to American lives being endangered/lost or would you be willing to act if the lives of our allies were endangered?

Then of course we have the question of a region of the globe being threatened and under what circumstnaces you would act to that sort of threat.

"When the solution involves the goal of diplomacy and peaceful settlement, you don't want any part of it."

Not true.

I'd much rather see diplomacy work but when it doesn't work I wouldn't just stick my head in the sand and keep mumbling 'give peace a chance'.

"Judging by your comments, you believe military might is better than striving for peace, at least it...works?"

As pointed out before there were people who kept striving for peace when it came to Hitler.

Instead of recognizing a growing threat and dealing with it people kept saying 'give peace a chance' and 'let's work for diplomacy'.

As a result Hitler grew in power and the threat grew.

Yet we continued to hear 'give peace a chance' and 'let's work for diplomacy'.

The 'give peace a chance' and 'let's work for diplomacy' attitude ended up costing the world anywhere from 40 to 60 million lives.

Or did we just not send smart enough diplomats???

"What is it about the word "emergency" you refuse to understand?"

That is a very general term.

I'm trying to get more specific answers from you....

"And if there are concerns about countries like Iran, they need to be addressed internationally within the UN."

IF Iran were to invade Iraq after we leave and the UN refused to take action you would ...?????

'give peace a chance' and 'let's work for diplomacy'

And if they did not stop with Iraq you would ...?????

'give peace a chance' and 'let's work for diplomacy'

And if they got Nukes you would ...??????

'give peace a chance' and 'let's work for diplomacy'

And of course if they use those Nukes you would ...?????

'give peace a chance' and 'let's work for diplomacy'

"Oh, and your so-called "Coalition of the Willing" is still acting outside the UN, and they disgrace that organization more than your accusations of corruption.

But there is international support....

You had said you would use military action without UN blessing if you had your own "Coalition of the Willing".

the_deciderer:Now the tide has turned and the war is not popular and everyone wants to get on the Bush Bashing Bandwagon.. You're hatred of GW (mostly due to the 2004 election) now consumes you so much that it clouds any subjective analysis.

I know I can't prove it to you, but I was against Bush and this war from the very beginning. Does that somehow make my stance "OK" or more relevant than someone elses? Of course not. If people have changed their minds about the war and about Bush after the fact, good for them. It means they possess the ability to think rationally and adapt. And to be fair, I haven't seen much of any true "subjective analysis" of hard facts from you or me or anyone in this forum, 'tis the nature of the fark...

smert:The way I see it you just won't accept reality

This is hilarious, because right after you said this, you say...

Ultimately the whole Israel/Palestinian conflict for example will not be settled until Israel moves somewhere else.

Is that your opinion or are you quoting someone else? If it's yours, then the only person who has trouble grasping reality is yourself.

If they lauch against Europe or Israel, what then?

Then... um... Israel and Europe will nuke them into, as Mike Tyson says, "Bolivion?" C'mon, do you honestly think Israel and Europe cannot defend themselves against Iran? Israel has already proven they can pretty much steamroll the entire middle east (except maybe for the Saudis). Do they really need our help?

No. What's the real reason then? Think about that and maybe you'll get it someday.

Lot of conversation the past week, gotta go to work but maybe I'll catch up this evening...

dottedmint: IF there was a threat that endangered 10,000 Americans I would hope that either the UN or YOU (if the UN refused) would act before all those lives were lost.

I don't know, dottedmint, I'm tired of the "what ifs" and it's obvious that you see more of a threat than I do.

There's a fine line between protection and paranoia.

You make it sound so simple.....

There's nothing simple about cleaning the house at the UN. But it takes a commitment, not the counterproductive resigning of oneself that the UN sucks and there's not a solution. You've got to take the first step. And I don't think, with the current foreign policy mindset, that the US is interested in that process. This governmnet WANTS that chaos.

How many American lives would need to be at risk before you would be willing to take military action?

Think of it this way: Right now, we're risking 300 million lives following the failed policies of this administration.

Or would you only take action after those lives were lost?

I don't have a crystal ball. Most likely action would take place after an attack. We cannot second-guess what's going to happen. And invading/meddling with other countries to satisfy some "what if" line of thinking. While you believe that somehow it keeps our country safe, it doesn't. It only makes the animosity and hatred of this country's pre-emptive actions more pronounced.

As pointed out before there were people who kept striving for peace when it came to Hitler.

And as pointed out, there is not one single justifiable comparison between today's world and 1937, NONE. Stop Godwinning the discussion. You're only making it more and more obvious how paranoid (and desperate) your political mindset is.

Your kind of fear is what this nation needs to rise above. Your obsession with pre-emptive military tactics is what's gotten this world in trouble with other countries and cultures.

You had said you would use military action without UN blessing if you had your own "Coalition of the Willing".

You have a big problem designating between the terms "emergency" and "politically motivated private little war."

And again, I see your desperate ploy to compare my hypothetical actions to the failed Iraq decision/policy of this administration. Cut it out. Stop trying to justify Bush's actions by trying to trap me into admitting I'd do the same crap he decided, because I wouldn't and it's not even the same thing. The only reason we have an interest in the Middle East is to control it. We are creating whatever problems you foresee there.

"Oh, and your so-called "Coalition of the Willing" is still acting outside the UN, and they disgrace that organization more than your accusations of corruption.

dottedmint: But there is international support....

No, there really isn't. It's bascially the United States and England and a handful of soldiers from other countries. It is not a UN-sanctioned operation, and it does not reflect the attitude of the rest of the world.

Again, this country has to stop thinking in terms of necessary evils, it is sinking this great nation. They've really got to stop, or you'll get your WWIII, dottedmint. In spades.